Official Report · Committee
Dairy Farmers (Human Rights) (PE1542)
link
The next petition is PE1542, by Evelyn Mundell on behalf of Ben Mundell and Malcolm and Caroline Smith, on human rights for dairy farmers. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I welcome Jamie McGrigor MSP to the meeting; Mr McGrigor has a constituency interest in the petition. I invite contributions from members.
As members will know, I have spoken on this long-running petition two or three times before. Thank you for allowing me once again to make a statement in support of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Mundell, and the other affected dairy farmers they represent, several of whom I know.
My constituents are disappointed with the responses received following their appearance at the committee on 13 January. They remain of the view that this is a human rights issue, since the affected dairy farmers in the ring-fenced area were prevented by Government from using their property—the quota they owned—to enable their businesses to survive. All other dairy farmers outwith the ring-fenced areas were able to sell their milk quota.
Many of those in the ring fence were dairy farmers with less good quality land, which meant that they were unable to diversify into alternatives such as arable crops, and many therefore went out of business. Further, individual dairy farmers were not consulted before the ring fence was decided on.
My constituents believe that the Scottish Government has repeatedly failed to address their concerns and recognise that their human rights were infringed. While we are aware that the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has been considering the current and significant challenges facing the Scottish dairy sector, this is quite a separate issue, and—as they suggest in their response—the petitioners would welcome the Public Petitions Committee continuing the petition and asking further detailed questions of the Scottish Government on this matter. They would also like to present scanned copies of further evidence on the case for the perusal of members of the committee.
I am of a similar opinion. I believe that there is a case to be answered. I see from the cabinet secretary’s response that there seems to be a measure of acceptance on the Government’s part, which is helpful. I therefore suggest that we continue the petition and consider the fresh evidence that has been presented to see how it might help the situation.
The committee will be aware that I raised the issue of ring fencing with the cabinet secretary when he gave evidence to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee during the urgent inquiry into the dairy crisis. He pointed out that the milk quota system is being phased out at a European level and that, therefore, the ring fencing in the southern isles, Kintyre and Orkney will ultimately be less relevant or will simply be an academic matter. However, he raised the point that protection for the island communities in relation to daily production still needs to be considered.
I take on board the petitioners’ view that the ring fencing in that part of Scotland has not been helpful, and I acknowledge that they believe that they have a retrospective case with regard to their human rights. However, I feel that the solution might involve going down the legal route rather than the Public Petitions Committee taking any further action. Clearly, if there is challenge to the Scottish Government, that must be handled by the courts, not by a parliamentary committee.
I think that we should either close the petition or wait until we have the dairy industry debate in the chamber at the end of the month so that we can see whether the issue is dealt with at that point.
I am optimistic and I always feel that we should go the extra mile for people. The fact that the petitioners have brought fresh information is helpful. We should not crush people’s hopes and aspirations and, therefore, we should allow that evidence to be submitted so that we can consider it. I do not think that it would be helpful to close the petition at this stage. We should go that extra mile and allow that information to come forward. I am keen to see it.
I note that Angus MacDonald asked questions of the cabinet secretary at another committee and that the cabinet secretary undertook to consider these matters.
There is an expectation that the issue might be addressed in the debate that is to take place, but, as debates in this Parliament often do, the debate could focus on some other aspect that arises and might not result in a satisfactory examination of this particular issue. I think that it would therefore be wise to take the debate into account and for us to decide afterwards whether the cabinet secretary was able to give further expression to his thinking on this matter. If we decide that he was not, we should write to him at that point to ask about his position.
link
Do we agree with the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
link
I thank Jamie McGrigor for attending, and I suspend the meeting for a few minutes to enable the next petitioner to come to the table.
10:30 Meeting suspended.
10:31 On resuming—
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.